“What is cruelty in one case may not be the same for another,” SC observes while granting a decree of divorce in a case where wife seeks divorce

While granting a decree of divorce in the Smt. Roopa Soni vs. Kamalnaraya Soni case, the Supreme Court (SC) of India said that the word cruelty has no fixed meaning under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act of 1955; therefore, it gives wide discretion to the Court to apply it liberally and contextually. The bench hearing the matter, Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice MM Sundresh, stated that “What is cruelty in one case may not be the same for another.” It added, “It has to be applied from person to person while taking note of the attending circumstances.” Along with this, the SC observed that “... an element of subjectivity has to be applied albeit, what constitutes cruelty is objective. Therefore, what is cruelty for a woman in a given case may not be cruelty for a man, and a relatively more elastic and broad approach is required when we examine a case in which a wife seeks divorce.” 

During the court proceedings, the bench also addressed that “Historically, the law of divorce was predominantly built on a conservative canvas based on the fault theory. Preservation of martial sanctity from a societal perspective was considered a prevailing factor. With the adoption of a libertarian attitude, the grounds for separation or dissolution of marriage have been construed with latitudinarianism.” It was also observed that to force incompatible couples to stay together could result in more harm to the children, “the court must also keep in mind that the home which is meant to be a happy and loveable place to live, becomes a source of misery and agony where the partners fight. When there are children they become direct victims of the said fights, though they may practically have no role in the breakdown of marriage. They suffer irreparable harm especially when the couple at loggerheads, remain unmindful and unconcerned about the psychological and mental impact it has on her/him.” 

The SC bench in the present case where the couple has been living separately for fifteen years said that “the marriage does not survive any longer, and the relationship was terminated otherwise except by a formal decree of divorce.” Setting aside the order of the Trial Court and the High Court, the SC granted a decree of divorce stating that “The Trial Court and the High Court adopted a hyper-technical and pedantic approach in declining the decree of divorce. It is not as if the respondent-husband is willing to live with the appellant-wife. The allegations made by him against her are as serious as the allegations made by her against him. Both the parties have moved away and settled in their respective lives. There is no need to continue the agony of a mere status without them living together.” Advocate Shantanu Sagar and Advocate Dusyant Parashar appeared for the Respondent and the Appellant respectively.